we couldn't put Holiday on it so we had to essentially let him go.Ironically from what I understand Scwartz has a lomg way to go and Holiday is now healthy.
I thought we put him on IR. Stupid NFL rules. We should still have him.
NYG released him off IR. This allow a player who had gotten healthy to go sign with another team, and frees the old team from paying the rest of his game checks.
The IR rules blow. We are forced to IR a guy and then waive him with an injury settlement who was not injured so bad he would be out for the year. The. IR rules need to change.
One designated for return spot, and the rest are either keep 'em on the roster or lose them for the year. In a sport where guys are constantly getting dinged up, I can't think of a way they could make it any worse.
Should be some sort of inactive/DL type short term option, not to mention more roster spots.
Maybe he was healthy maybe he wasn't but this goes beyond Holiday. A guy like McBride who most likely wouldn't be out 13 weeks with a thumb is IR'd because you just can't carry them. Or Cruz a few years back when at the end of the season he was perfectly healthy and we were forced to sign the Derek Hagans of the world.
that LB last year Dan Conner (?) who had just a couple week injury.
I don't mind these rules. What is the alternative? A DL that would be totally abused and serve as a roster expansion, similar to how rules had been exploited in the past by teams like the Cowboys and Patriots?
we let him go for the same reason Denver did; you don't know if you are getting the good TH or the bad TH on a play.
And the bad TH on a return is costly.
The way I see it is:if OUR ST guys could strip the ball from him on a return during practice, he was a huge liability.And that is what they must have seen.
We would also have too many LSU receivers on the team(jk).
that LB last year Dan Conner (?) who had just a couple week injury.
I don't mind these rules. What is the alternative? A DL that would be totally abused and serve as a roster expansion, similar to how rules had been exploited in the past by teams like the Cowboys and Patriots?
The alternative would be open to abuse, but at the same time would basically provide all teams an extended roster (even if all players could not be active for every game).
Take any team right now playing at a high level, and give them 1-2 injuries at the same, non-QB position (since you're not getting depth there no matter what). You could take that winning team and turn them into a has-been in a number of weeks, simply because there's not enough room to carry quality depth. Every year, we're forced to let go of a handful of players who would've proven useful later in the season, mostly because we don't have anywhere on the roster to stash them. And it's not just us, it's every team in the league.
I get that the league wants parity, but this seems to be done more for the bottom line than anything else, and it's at the expense of the quality of the product.
One designated for return spot, and the rest are either keep 'em on the roster or lose them for the year. In a sport where guys are constantly getting dinged up, I can't think of a way they could make it any worse.
Should be some sort of inactive/DL type short term option, not to mention more roster spots.
There is an inactive/DL type option. It's called roster spots 46 thru 53. Previously, when you were able to activate players from IR, the NFL roster was only 45. Now you can hold onto extra guys who may not be ready to suit up in a given week.
They are on a team learning the system and get hurt with an 8-10 week injury. Instead of being put on some type of DL they are waived and settled. Now they are without team, can't study, really can't train and when healthy have to scratch and claw to catch on with someone. If they were allowed a disabled list stint at the very least they would have access to extremely good facilities and care and could continue to sit in meetings and mentally prepare to return to the system that isn't foreign to them.
You want better quality product on the field? Here is a good first step.
One designated for return spot, and the rest are either keep 'em on the roster or lose them for the year. In a sport where guys are constantly getting dinged up, I can't think of a way they could make it any worse.
Should be some sort of inactive/DL type short term option, not to mention more roster spots.
There is an inactive/DL type option. It's called roster spots 46 thru 53. Previously, when you were able to activate players from IR, the NFL roster was only 45. Now you can hold onto extra guys who may not be ready to suit up in a given week.
FJ - that was my point though, it's not enough. 7 spots to harbor all your spare players for all positions, including guys who might not be ready for weeks?
That's why the owners get laughed out of town when they talk about extending the season. There's so much pressure on guys to keep playing through injury or rush back, largely due to the fact that the roster space is so tight that there's no quality depth once you get past the starter. Tack on a few extra spots, make them something similar to the DL in baseball where you have to miss a certain number of games if you go on it, and the result will be higher payroll costs for the owners but a better product.
Obviously, they realized it was at least a bit of a problem, otherwise we wouldn't have seen the designated to return IR spot.
The "designated to return IR spot" was created only because there was one or two superstars who got hurt.
8 inactive roster spots aren't enough for the injured players? How many do you want? If I remember correctly, even back when the NFL allowed players to be activated from the IR, they only allowed each team something like 4 such activations.
The "designated to return IR spot" was created only because there was one or two superstars who got hurt.
8 inactive roster spots aren't enough for the injured players? How many do you want? If I remember correctly, even back when the NFL allowed players to be activated from the IR, they only allowed each team something like 4 such activations.
That's true - but that's also pre-FA. Before free agency, you had much better continuity with your depth, since you held on to players that you developed more often.
Since there's more of a focus on player safety now, I would have expected that number to increase, if not to double. Now we have protocols where a guy might sit a few weeks after a concussion. That's commendable, but the game should also adapt it's roster handling to reflect the fact that we expect guys to miss more time now.
You two think the number of players available should be higher, but the owners don't agree for financial reasons. The roster will stay at 53 until/unless the owners can negotiate other concessions with the NFLPA in the CBA.
You two think the number of players available should be higher, but the owners don't agree for financial reasons. The roster will stay at 53 until/unless the owners can negotiate other concessions with the NFLPA in the CBA.
I know that - mentioned it above. It's done purely for financial reasons. I think it's become pretty clear though that the game is suffering (how much is debatable) as a result of that decision.
Seems extremely short sighted to me too, since another 5 people at the bottom of the roster would cost them no more than $5m a year (and that's the absolute max), when compared to the cost of the salary cap as it currently stands it's less than 5% of payroll.
Won't happen due to the cost, and that's a damn shame.
they'd be malleable to expanded rosters. I think we could all agree that the product of the overall game would be much better if there were a couple more roster spots.
they'd be malleable to expanded rosters. I think we could all agree that the product of the overall game would be much better if there were a couple more roster spots.
It's not just the owners. The players are also greedy, and that greed can conflict with the ability to get themselves extra help in the form of more players.
Xavier Grimble
Trindon Holiday
Reese you suck!!!
NYG released him off IR. This allow a player who had gotten healthy to go sign with another team, and frees the old team from paying the rest of his game checks.
Should have kept on ir...him and holiday only had
hammies
They IR'd him and could have even kept him on season-long IR and never waived him.
Should be some sort of inactive/DL type short term option, not to mention more roster spots.
Right about the time Beckham did. If you believe Holliday he said he's be ready right after opening day.
Not sure where 8 weeks came from.
or if he really had a 12 week tweaked hamstring.
I don't mind these rules. What is the alternative? A DL that would be totally abused and serve as a roster expansion, similar to how rules had been exploited in the past by teams like the Cowboys and Patriots?
And the bad TH on a return is costly.
The way I see it is:if OUR ST guys could strip the ball from him on a return during practice, he was a huge liability.And that is what they must have seen.
We would also have too many LSU receivers on the team(jk).
I don't mind these rules. What is the alternative? A DL that would be totally abused and serve as a roster expansion, similar to how rules had been exploited in the past by teams like the Cowboys and Patriots?
The alternative would be open to abuse, but at the same time would basically provide all teams an extended roster (even if all players could not be active for every game).
Take any team right now playing at a high level, and give them 1-2 injuries at the same, non-QB position (since you're not getting depth there no matter what). You could take that winning team and turn them into a has-been in a number of weeks, simply because there's not enough room to carry quality depth. Every year, we're forced to let go of a handful of players who would've proven useful later in the season, mostly because we don't have anywhere on the roster to stash them. And it's not just us, it's every team in the league.
I get that the league wants parity, but this seems to be done more for the bottom line than anything else, and it's at the expense of the quality of the product.
Should be some sort of inactive/DL type short term option, not to mention more roster spots.
There is an inactive/DL type option. It's called roster spots 46 thru 53. Previously, when you were able to activate players from IR, the NFL roster was only 45. Now you can hold onto extra guys who may not be ready to suit up in a given week.
You want better quality product on the field? Here is a good first step.
Quote:
One designated for return spot, and the rest are either keep 'em on the roster or lose them for the year. In a sport where guys are constantly getting dinged up, I can't think of a way they could make it any worse.
Should be some sort of inactive/DL type short term option, not to mention more roster spots.
There is an inactive/DL type option. It's called roster spots 46 thru 53. Previously, when you were able to activate players from IR, the NFL roster was only 45. Now you can hold onto extra guys who may not be ready to suit up in a given week.
FJ - that was my point though, it's not enough. 7 spots to harbor all your spare players for all positions, including guys who might not be ready for weeks?
That's why the owners get laughed out of town when they talk about extending the season. There's so much pressure on guys to keep playing through injury or rush back, largely due to the fact that the roster space is so tight that there's no quality depth once you get past the starter. Tack on a few extra spots, make them something similar to the DL in baseball where you have to miss a certain number of games if you go on it, and the result will be higher payroll costs for the owners but a better product.
Obviously, they realized it was at least a bit of a problem, otherwise we wouldn't have seen the designated to return IR spot.
8 inactive roster spots aren't enough for the injured players? How many do you want? If I remember correctly, even back when the NFL allowed players to be activated from the IR, they only allowed each team something like 4 such activations.
8 inactive roster spots aren't enough for the injured players? How many do you want? If I remember correctly, even back when the NFL allowed players to be activated from the IR, they only allowed each team something like 4 such activations.
That's true - but that's also pre-FA. Before free agency, you had much better continuity with your depth, since you held on to players that you developed more often.
Since there's more of a focus on player safety now, I would have expected that number to increase, if not to double. Now we have protocols where a guy might sit a few weeks after a concussion. That's commendable, but the game should also adapt it's roster handling to reflect the fact that we expect guys to miss more time now.
In this scenario you're still going to end up cutting/losing guys off the roster due to injury.
I know that - mentioned it above. It's done purely for financial reasons. I think it's become pretty clear though that the game is suffering (how much is debatable) as a result of that decision.
Seems extremely short sighted to me too, since another 5 people at the bottom of the roster would cost them no more than $5m a year (and that's the absolute max), when compared to the cost of the salary cap as it currently stands it's less than 5% of payroll.
Won't happen due to the cost, and that's a damn shame.
It's not just the owners. The players are also greedy, and that greed can conflict with the ability to get themselves extra help in the form of more players.